Splendid, Sweeping, Rhythmic Patterns: The Garden of Euphues

It is in the approach to detail that national characteristics can often be most distinctly appreciated. In 1668 Van Der Groen published Den nederlanischen Howenier, the equivalent in aim and influence of Boyceau's Traite du Jardinage, but the many plans of parterres in the Dutch book show very clearly a lack of volatility, of fancy, and of lightness of touch which may be thought symptomatic of the Dutch taste. There is no sign of those splendid, sweeping, rhythmic patterns that made compartiments de broderie famous at Anet, at the Luxembourg, at the Tuileries, and at every garden upon which Boyceau and the Mollets and Le Notre laid their hands. Part of this failure to embroider the ground with delicacy and refinement must no doubt be attributed to the lack of suitable viewing points; terraces were rare, but the root of the matter was that the frivolity of the compartiments de broderie was not really in accord with the Dutch temperament. At least as significant as the rejection of the French parterre is the rejection of the classical motive. In no other gardens in Europe at that date is there so little that directly reminds one of Rome. In 1583 Vredeman de Vries was using the fashionable words, but there is no indication that he has the least idea what they mean. His published patterns of `knots' are named `Doric', `Ionic', and `Corinthian', but the closest study of the designs fails to reveal any relationship between these shapes and the classic orders; indeed, it is not possible to distinguish any consistent feature by which these `parterre orders' differ even from each other. De Vries is of early date and it is true that his contemporaries in England were still having some trouble in sorting out the orders, but at least they were more than words to them. The material ground for the failure of the usual classical apparatus to appear significantly in Dutch gardens is the shortage of stone. Without stone they were without balustrading, ornamental urns, and statuary, except in so far as the lack could be made good by earthenware or lead or bronze. Socially the reason lay in the lack of an educated aristocracy. The well-to-do tradesmen when they set up gardens had never heard of Pliny, and the classical legends that spread over Italy and France in carven fountain groups were Chinese to the burghers of Amsterdam. Had there been an aristocracy to emulate, no doubt the burghers would have demanded such fountains, Chinese or not, but the valuable stimulus of snobbery was lacking.